Re: Upcoming RFC's...

I would rather see one largeish RFC integrating all these. More RFCs
are not necessarily better.

"Advanced Perl Multi-dimensional notation".

And n-dim things are not necessarily matrices.

Karl

Buddha Buck wrote:
> 
> If I'm stepping on toes here, please tell me...
> 
> Here are some suggestions for some upcoming language-data RFC's I'm
> thinking of writing:
> 
> RFC 169v2: Matrix Indexing
>     Cover my $matrix[$x;$y;$z] syntax
>     Add Jeremy's $matrix[$listref] syntax
>     Discuss why two ways of doing it.
>     Move index iterators to new RFC
>     Move matrix slicing to new RFC
>     Move @#matrix to new RFC
> 
> RFC X: Matrix Slicing
>     Cover @matrix[@x,@y,@z] syntax
>     Cover @matrix[@listoflistrefs] syntax
>     Discuss how they are different, with examples.
> 
> RFC X+1:  Matrix Index Iterators
>     Explain the issue
>     Present ^i,^j syntax (and why IMHO it has problems)
>     Present @* syntax    (and why IMHO it is ugly ;-) )
>     Ask for better alternatives.
> 
> RFC X+2: Retrieving Matrix dimensions
>     Present @#matrix as analogous to $#array
>     Discuss what $#matrix should return, as well as @#array
>     What is @matrix in scaler context?  (undef, anyone?)
> 
> This covers (and slightly expands on) the "consensus proposals" we have
> achieved (I believe).  I'll post these tonight, and if there are no
> problems, I think we can probably quickly freeze RFC169 and RFC X.  The
> others might have more discussion.
> 
> I think Jeremy should also post an RFC detailing his LOL syntax extensions
> for accessing matrix elements.
> 
> A new proposal:
> 
> RFC X+3: Flattening Matrices
>     Present @array = flatten(@matrix), which returns the elements of @matrix
>         as a 1-dimensional (sparse) array.
>     Discuss the efficiency of this
>     How to undo?
> 
> A needed RFC that I'm not confident to write, but I feel it is needed:
> 
> RFC X+4: Syntax for Matrix Literals.